http://downtrend.com/travis/california-begins-confiscating-legally-purchased-guns/

OH CR@P are we next?

Yup...there are a lot of liberals in the State of Hawaii.

This is one of those "common sense" solutions that I happen to think is a good idea IN THEORY, but will be absolutely implemented poorly.

Just like a driver's license or other permit, it should be "reviewed" periodically and as relevant information is made known.  The reviewing agency may determine you NO LONGER are eligible to own firearms in your home. 

You may be a new psych patient,
have a child recently diagnosed with a behavioral disorder, or
have recently been convicted of a disqualifying offense.

Any number of disqualifying situations could have kept you from purchasing a weapon IF the situation existed at the time of purchase.  If the situation arises after purchase, it makes sense to remove the weapons TEMPORARILY in most cases, by having a friend or family member store the guns.  If that can't be arranged, then the local LE should have safe storage available for temporary purposes only.

When the situation is resolved, and the owner is no longer ineligible, the weapons ought to be returned.  If the situation is not expected to be resolved, the weapons should be disposed of BY THE OWNER OR CARE GIVER.  They can be sold, given to friends and family, or turned in as the owner decides.  The government should NOT relieve the owner of his property.  The state doesn't take away someone's car when they are going through rehab following a series of DUIs.  They revoke his license.  Taking of property by the government is wrong unless the circumstances are exceptional.

Again, a valid idea from an intent perspective, but a bad idea to expect the government (politicians) to devise a satisfactory implementation.

This is the problem to those that missed the article

Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.

This is the problem to those that missed the article

Yeah. That is a huge problem.

This is the problem to those that missed the article

I can understand for mental health reasons but behind on taxes and toll fees wtf?

I can understand for mental health reasons but behind on taxes and toll fees wtf?

And I would caution that even the "sounds so reasonable" mental health reasons may not be all that reasonable. What if your spouse dies and you feel depressed and seek counseling? You never express any suicidal ideation or fail to maintain your basic self care, you are just sad over your recent loss. Does that mean you loose your Second Amendment rights?

You have an autistic child, or one with Down's syndrome? Automatically disqualify you from owning guns?

Bottom line: I don't think a bureaucrat should be responsible for determining if you can exercise your individual rights....

And I would caution that even the "sounds so reasonable" mental health reasons may not be all that reasonable. What if your spouse dies and you feel depressed and seek counseling? You never express any suicidal ideation or fail to maintain your basic self care, you are just sad over your recent loss. Does that mean you loose your Second Amendment rights?

You have an autistic child, or one with Down's syndrome? Automatically disqualify you from owning guns?

Bottom line: I don't think a bureaucrat should be responsible for determining if you can exercise your individual rights....

I hear you. Seeing how loose these reasons are, It could go in any direction.

And yet we have members here who claim to be pro-2A and they'll vote for Obama and other Democrats. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

And yet we have members here who claim to be pro-2A and they'll vote for Obama and other Democrats. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Unfortunately, there are no "one size fits all" politicians For me, the tragedy that would have been Paul Ryan or Sarah Palin in national office and the overall republican platform of religious-oriented dogmatic legislation of morals absolutely precluded me from voting for them. Obama has HUGE issues. Had McCain picked someone less frothing-at-the-mouth retarded than Palin I would've voted for him over Obama with no second guesses or doubts. As it was, both of the recent republican tickets were unacceptable to me, even though they supported the typical second amendment republican stances. The democratic tickets posed fewer overarching concerns, even considering their gun control platform.

Unfortunately, there are no "one size fits all" politicians For me, the tragedy that would have been Paul Ryan or Sarah Palin in national office and the overall republican platform of religious-oriented dogmatic legislation of morals absolutely precluded me from voting for them. Obama has HUGE issues. Had McCain picked someone less frothing-at-the-mouth retarded than Palin I would've voted for him over Obama with no second guesses or doubts. As it was, both of the recent republican tickets were unacceptable to me, even though they supported the typical second amendment republican stances. The democratic tickets posed fewer overarching concerns, even considering their gun control platform.

Please don't read this the wrong way... I am not asking this question out of offense but out of a serious and honest discussion....

You had mentioned that you didn't like Palin and Paul Ryan... Yes, they have their issues as candidates but you had mentioned that your reason for not voting for them was their strong religious views.  Ok, if I may now ask...

-------------
Why is it so wrong if a candidate has a strong religious Christian faith? 

Before you argue for the negative, let me argue for the positive.  Here are some select principles that Christians live by:

1. .... That there is a God who sees all (even things done in secret) and will one day render judgment to each person's wrongdoings?  Because God is a perfect judge, He will not allow evil to go unpunished.

What is so bad in the belief that a perfect God will eventually right all wrong, knowing that imperfect people are unable to render perfect justice?

2. .... That all have fallen short and deserve God's just punishment, but that God had made a way for forgiveness by rendering righteous punishment which his Son Jesus has received in our place?

Being a Christian, one realizes that one is never perfect and that we should show mercy to others, in the same way God has shown mercy to us.

As high of an esteem that we may have for our own self valuation, we realize that we are but dust and that one day we will not be here.  But God will still be around for all eternity.  (I was driving up H3 today and think how tiny we are and short-lived our lives are compared to God's creation of the majestic mountain range of Kaneohe.)

3. ... That we are to do good not because we are trying to "earn points" in the karmic scale of the universe, but that Jesus/God has paid a price for our lives, redeemed us as his brother/sister and should act accordingly as an adopted child of God.

4. .... That Jesus' ultimate teaching regarding our behavior is for us to love God and one another. 

Jesus' two greatest commandment: love God above all else, and love others as you would love yourself.

Why is it important to love God above all?  Because all things of this world are temporary and without God, loving temporary and earthly things only eventually leads to eternal death.

5. .... That Jesus' ultimate mission on this earth was to come for the lost and reconcile us with God who created us for his own purposes and who loves us.

Jesus did not spend time with the self-righteous but spent time with the weak and the sinners.

That as insignificant we are in the big scheme of things, God treasures each and every one of us that He has given everything He has, even himself, to get us back.

What is so wrong about this belief?

---------------

Are we really better off not teaching these Christian values or electing leaders that do not follow these Christian values?

1. ... That morality is relative / arbitrary and fits one's preference which changes in a whim?  Kinda like a choose to follow only what you like but not what you don't?

2. .... Or, that there is no God and that our existence is really just pointless?  And that other people's lives are worth nothing because the strong have more moral right to survive than the weak?  That might makes right and that it is okay to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc to get what one wants?

3. .... Or, that "perfected" or "enlightened" human beings deserve to rule over the others who are not?

Is our society really better off with the product of this last few God-less generations of corrupt politicians and crooked CEOs?  When we put people with these non-Christian belief in positions of power, is our society really that much better for it?

Yes there are fake and crooked "Christians".  It is hard to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men but that is a given regarding the human condition.

.

I would have voted for Tulsi if she gave me sexy time 

Better than that whiny voice from Palin 

.

My belief is there's most certainly a higher power, but no one - not Christians (7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Jehovah's Witnesses, Anglicans or any other sect,) nor any of the other Abrahamic religions (Islam and Judaism,) nor  Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Pastafarians or any other system of beliefs has a lock or exclusive "rights" to the truth. To legislate as if they do is a step backwards in my opinion.

Paul Ryan stated explicitly that he would bend civil law to "comport to a higher law" - specifically biblical, due to his strongly Christian beliefs. A parallel could be drawn between Paul Ryan's "higher law" and the Islamic adherence to Sharia - a legal system directly based upon their holy book. In my opinion, both of them are wrong. The laws of our country should be based upon what is right and fair for the majority of people, not just the people that hold certain beliefs. Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion.

A secondary concern is their (strongly religious people) tendency to ignore well-established facts in favor of the teachings of their particular system of beliefs. Take Palin's 'young earth' views, for instance. There is so much evidence across so much scientific research and documentation that refute it, but she is unwilling to consider the position because it controverts her strongly-held belief system. Even with incontrovertible proof to the contrary. To me, this is a HUGE concern.

In politicians, I greatly prefer people that hold positions based upon reality as we understand it and that will make decisions for the benefit of the greatest amount of people based upon the best information available, as opposed to immutable belief systems that are predicated on faith.

I would have voted for both if they gave me sexy time at the same time. Now that is what I call bi-partisan cooperation.

Team work, ladies! Team work!

Lol!

My belief is there's most certainly a higher power, but no one - not Christians (7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Jehovah's Witnesses, Anglicans or any other sect,) nor any of the other Abrahamic religions (Islam and Judaism,) nor  Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Pastafarians or any other system of beliefs has a lock or exclusive "rights" to the truth. To legislate as if they do is a step backwards in my opinion.

Actually, a lot of what is in our legal system is from the bible.

Thou shalt not kill / murder.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house
Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife

In what way is it wrong to take inspiration from this?

Paul Ryan stated explicitly that he would bend civil law to "comport to a higher law" - specifically biblical, due to his strongly Christian beliefs. A parallel could be drawn between Paul Ryan's "higher law" and the Islamic adherence to Sharia - a legal system directly based upon their holy book. In my opinion, both of them are wrong. The laws of our country should be based upon what is right and fair for the majority of people, not just the people that hold certain beliefs. Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion.

The teachings of Christianity and Islam are not the same and it would be unfair to put both in the same category.  Just as it is unfair to say that Secularism is supreme and is the only belief system allowable.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Freedom of religion is freedom to practice one's religion without persecution by the government... which is what your statement seems to advocate.... persecute religious believers and automatically say that they are unfit to lead and that only secular people are fit to lead.

A secondary concern is their (strongly religious people) tendency to ignore well-established facts in favor of the teachings of their particular system of beliefs. Take Palin's 'young earth' views, for instance. There is so much evidence across so much scientific research and documentation that refute it, but she is unwilling to consider the position because it controverts her strongly-held belief system. Even with incontrovertible proof to the contrary. To me, this is a HUGE concern.

The scientific mind always allows for the possibility that what it believes is wrong and continues to test current theories and understanding of the empirical universe. To say that the widely-held theory of evolution is the one and only true explanation for the origin of our world and is irrefutable, is as dogmatic as how you claim religious belief system to be.

Darwin's theory of evolution is what it is... a theory. A good one... but it is still only a theory. There are circumstantial evidence that seems to support it but one cannot prove it for sure because one cannot replicate evolution over millions of years.  Belief in evolution is also faith-based as no one has actually seen or made it to happen.

The mind that explains the theory of evolution is the same as the mind that sees A and Z and assumes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y is in between although there are nearly infinite other possibilities that could have happened considering that the timespan concerned is in the BILLIONS of years.

In fact, major mutations are usually fatal to the mutated creature.  Mutation / variations seem to only be survivable within very small parameters (changing eye color, skin color, height, weight, etc).  Has anyone been able to produce an apple from a banana?  Or how about grow a bird from a fish?  No... A species only produces others of its own species.  Funny that the Bible happens to state that this is so.

Genesis 1:11-12
"Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:24-25
"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Notice how in Genesis, it often says "according to their kind."  In this case, which is more correct based on what we can observe empirically?  Do we see any species producing offsprings not of their own species anywhere?  Ever?  Which does empirical evidence seem to support now?  Darwin or Genesis 1?

In politicians, I greatly prefer people that hold positions based upon reality as we understand it and that will make decisions for the benefit of the greatest amount of people based upon the best information available, as opposed to immutable belief systems that are predicated on faith.

Yikes!  And that is why we have the current crop of politicians and CEOs that we have now.

In my opinion, most leaders believe that they are making the "right" decision based on their beliefs and values.  Unfortunately, Post Modern Existentialism has made what is "right" relative and arbitrary, and thus saved up as a topic for a philosophical discussion at the next 2A Pau-Hana.

Please don't read this the wrong way... I am not asking this question out of offense but out of a serious and honest discussion....

You had mentioned that you didn't like Palin and Paul Ryan... Yes, they have their issues as candidates but you had mentioned that your reason for not voting for them was their strong religious views.  Ok, if I may now ask...

-------------
Why is it so wrong if a candidate has a strong religious Christian faith? 

Before you argue for the negative, let me argue for the positive.  Here are some select principles that Christians live by:

1. .... That there is a God who sees all (even things done in secret) and will one day render judgment to each person's wrongdoings?  Because God is a perfect judge, He will not allow evil to go unpunished.

What is so bad in the belief that a perfect God will eventually right all wrong, knowing that imperfect people are unable to render perfect justice?

2. .... That all have fallen short and deserve God's just punishment, but that God had made a way for forgiveness by rendering righteous punishment which his Son Jesus has received in our place?

Being a Christian, one realizes that one is never perfect and that we should show mercy to others, in the same way God has shown mercy to us.

As high of an esteem that we may have for our own self valuation, we realize that we are but dust and that one day we will not be here.  But God will still be around for all eternity.  (I was driving up H3 today and think how tiny we are and short-lived our lives are compared to God's creation of the majestic mountain range of Kaneohe.)

3. ... That we are to do good not because we are trying to "earn points" in the karmic scale of the universe, but that Jesus/God has paid a price for our lives, redeemed us as his brother/sister and should act accordingly as an adopted child of God.

4. .... That Jesus' ultimate teaching regarding our behavior is for us to love God and one another. 

Jesus' two greatest commandment: love God above all else, and love others as you would love yourself.

Why is it important to love God above all?  Because all things of this world are temporary and without God, loving temporary and earthly things only eventually leads to eternal death.

5. .... That Jesus' ultimate mission on this earth was to come for the lost and reconcile us with God who created us for his own purposes and who loves us.

Jesus did not spend time with the self-righteous but spent time with the weak and the sinners.

That as insignificant we are in the big scheme of things, God treasures each and every one of us that He has given everything He has, even himself, to get us back.

What is so wrong about this belief?

---------------

Are we really better off not teaching these Christian values or electing leaders that do not follow these Christian values?

1. ... That morality is relative / arbitrary and fits one's preference which changes in a whim?  Kinda like a choose to follow only what you like but not what you don't?

2. .... Or, that there is no God and that our existence is really just pointless?  And that other people's lives are worth nothing because the strong have more moral right to survive than the weak?  That might makes right and that it is okay to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc to get what one wants?

3. .... Or, that "perfected" or "enlightened" human beings deserve to rule over the others who are not?

Is our society really better off with the product of this last few God-less generations of corrupt politicians and crooked CEOs?  When we put people with these non-Christian belief in positions of power, is our society really that much better for it?

Yes there are fake and crooked "Christians".  It is hard to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men but that is a given regarding the human condition.

this guy would argue with you

and if he loses he will make your life "hell" like he does with churches here in Hawaii

.

I feel sorry for that guy and gal.  They are actually giving their cause a bad name. Their words and actions reveal what is in their hearts.

I don't know if they thought it through but I can imagine unintended consequences to non-religious 501c3 organizations that utilize school grounds and do not pay a cent to the DOE.  The premise for their case is absurd and only reveals what is in their hearts and minds.